The owner of a guest house in Co Galway has claimed the operator breached a licence agreement by using it to house as many Ukrainian refugees as possible.
In a vigorously contested case, Maldua Limited alleges Naomi Walton was permitted to operate Maldua House in Clifden as a guest house but changed its use without prior written consent to refugee accommodation for a larger number of people.
Simply accommodating refugees would have been acceptable, but the original layout and structure of the “luxury” guest house were changed to accommodate as many people as possible, Maldua claims.
It also alleges she carried out extensive unauthorised modifications to the property without authorisation and without complying with fire safety and planning regulations and that these caused severe damage, including structural changes and “shoddy” electrical works.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
The “complete and substandard remodelling” included erecting walls to remove, divide or alter existing bedrooms, the firm says. Furniture and fittings were cleared, including some valuable contents, which were sold, and bunk beds were inserted, Maldua alleges. It says it terminated the “licence” agreement but Ms Walton refuses to vacate the property.
Urgent repairs
Ms Walton denies wrongdoing and says the modifications, which are fully compliant with fire safety requirements, were required to address urgently needed repairs and to facilitate the arrival of refugees. She argues the agreement is not a licence but a lease, which affords her greater statutory protection.
She claims she invested substantial sums in the building on the basis she would be allowed to buy it. She says she is entitled to remain in possession of the premises.
Ms Walton claims she was asked by a Government department in July 2022 to house Ukrainian refugees and to buy bunk beds so families can share rooms. She wanted to help as much as possible, offering her children’s bedrooms for what she understood to be a temporary six-month arrangement. She says she accommodated 36 refugees, the same number she could host as a bed and breakfast.
Stud walls erected can be reversed and the property can be returned to its original condition as and when required, she says. She spent €25,000 on a new fire system as she was warned the electrics were extremely unsafe.
Each side blames the other for a fire that occurred at the property.
The details of the dispute were set out by Mr Justice Liam Kennedy in a ruling on Maldua’s application for temporary injunctions, to expire upon resolution of the case, requiring the plaintiff to vacate the Galway Road property on grounds of an alleged breach of the “licence” agreement.
Strong case
Given the conflicting evidence, the court was not in a position pre-trial to conclude that Maldua has established a strong case for repudiating the agreement if it transpires it was a tenancy rather than a licence, the judge said.
He was satisfied Maldua made out a strong case that the agreement was a licence and that Ms Walton had breached it by her actions, since authorisation should “clearly” have been sought for many of the alterations. However, Ms Walton has produced evidence that does suggest possible defences to the central tenets of Maldua’s claim, he said.
Mr Justice Kennedy was satisfied that certain issues could be adequately addressed by an award of damages to Maldua, instead of the injunctions, if it ultimately succeeds at trial. It would be “draconian” at this stage to require Ms Walton and her family to leave the premises, where they are living, which would also presumably result in the immediate eviction of 35 refugees, the judge said.
Ms Walton agreed to deal with a range of issues identified. Mr Justice Kennedy said he would have no hesitation in revisiting the “balance of convenience” test (in determining whether or not to grant a pre-trial injunction) if further evidence is adduced to satisfy such a reassessment.
The full dispute has yet to be heard and determined by the court.
